DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 reads “the outputter notifies an other vehicle of a sensor type of the sensor” but should read “the outputter notifies another vehicle of a sensor type of the sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20200051434 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190068582 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches an anomaly detection device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory that stores a program, wherein the processor executes the program to operate the anomaly detection device as: an obtainer (200) that obtains a first detection result generated by a first detection device (data analysis apparatus 130) that is included in a first apparatus (10A) which is a vehicle (obtains vehicle data indicating a vehicle status of a first vehicle), and a second detection result generated by a second detection device (external data communicator 132) that is included in a second apparatus (10B) in the vicinity of the first apparatus and detects in the vicinity of the second apparatus (obtains external data indicating a external circumstance of the first vehicle from at least one of a second vehicle). (Abstract, Paragraphs 45, 66-67, 69, 76-78, Claims 1-7, Fig.8)
Sasaki also teaches a determiner (determiner 230) that determines whether at least one of the first apparatus (10A) or the second apparatus (10B) is being attacked (determiner 230 concludes that there is any inconsistency (Yes in step S13), determiner 230 concludes that an anomaly occurs in any of vehicle 10 and traffic infrastructure system 300), by comparing (S12) (comparison between the vehicle data and the external data is performed to determine whether or not there is inconsistency between a vehicle status of vehicle 10) the first detection result and the second detection result. (Paragraphs 92-95, Figs.2, 8)
Sasaki also teaches an outputter that outputs a result of determination by the determiner (Determiner 230 outputs the determination result to information communicator 270). (Paragraphs 98, 102, 180)
Sasaki does not explicitly teach a first object detection result generated by a first object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result generated by a second object detection device.
Kim teaches a first object detection result (common object identified by the sensor data) generated by a first object detection device (sensor data from a first vehicle at 1302) and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result (common object identified by the sensor data) generated by a second object detection device (secondary sensor data from a second vehicle at 1304). (Paragraphs 96-98, Figs.13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate a first object detection result generated by a first object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result generated by a second object detection device in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki teaches wherein the obtainer successively obtains first detection results successively generated by the first detection device, and successively obtains second detection results successively generated by the second detection device, and the determiner successively determines whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by successively comparing, among the first detection results and the second detection results successively obtained by the obtainer, a first detection result and a second detection result which are generated at timings corresponding to each other. (Paragraphs 45, 66-67, 76-78, 92-95, Claims 1-7, Figs.2, 8)
Sasaki does not explicitly teach successively obtains first object detection results successively generated by the first object detection device, and successively obtains second object detection results and successively comparing, among the first object detection results and the second object detection results.
Kim teaches successively obtains first object detection results successively generated by the first object detection device, and successively obtains second object detection results and successively comparing, among the first object detection results and the second object detection results (number of commonly detected objects is compared to see if it meets a system trust threshold). (Paragraphs 96-98, 89, Figs.8, 13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate successively obtains first object detection results successively generated by the first object detection device, and successively obtains second object detection results and successively comparing, among the first object detection results and the second object detection results in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches wherein the obtainer further obtains a first position of the first apparatus when the first detection device generates the first detection result, and a second position of the second apparatus when the second detection device generates the second detection result, and the determiner determines whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by comparing the first detection result generated when the first position is included in a predetermined region and the second detection result generated when the second position is included in the predetermined region. (Paragraphs 93-96, Fig.8)
Sasaki does not explicitly teach the first object detection device generates the first object detection result and the second object detection device generates the second object detection result and comparing the first object detection result generated when the first position is included in a predetermined region and the second object detection result.
Kim teaches the first object detection device generates the first object detection result and the second object detection device generates the second object detection result and comparing the first object detection result generated when the first position is included in a predetermined region and the second object detection result. (Paragraphs 90, 106, 108, 124, Figs.8, 13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate the first object detection device generates the first object detection result and the second object detection device generates the second object detection result and comparing the first object detection result generated when the first position is included in a predetermined region and the second object detection result in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the determiner determines whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by comparing the first object detection result and the second object detection result, the first object detection result indicating that an object is detected in a traveling direction of the first apparatus.
Kim teaches wherein the determiner determines whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by comparing the first object detection result and the second object detection result, the first object detection result indicating that an object is detected in a traveling direction of the first apparatus. (Paragraphs 89-90, 104, Figs.3, 8, 13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate wherein the determiner determines whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by comparing the first object detection result and the second object detection result, the first object detection result indicating that an object is detected in a traveling direction of the first apparatus in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the first object detection device includes a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the second object detection device includes a third sensor of the first type and a fourth sensor of the second type, the first object detection result includes a first detection result from the first sensor and a second detection result from the second sensor, the second object detection result includes a third detection result from the third sensor and a fourth detection result from the fourth sensor, the determiner compares the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, and when the determiner identifies one detection result different from three other detection results among four detection results including the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, the outputter notifies an other vehicle of a sensor type of the sensor from which the one detection result identified has been obtained.
Kim teaches wherein the first object detection device includes a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the second object detection device includes a third sensor of the first type and a fourth sensor of the second type, the first object detection result includes a first detection result from the first sensor and a second detection result from the second sensor, the second object detection result includes a third detection result from the third sensor and a fourth detection result from the fourth sensor, the determiner compares the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, and when the determiner identifies one detection result different from three other detection results among four detection results including the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, the outputter notifies an other vehicle of a sensor type of the sensor from which the one detection result identified has been obtained. (Paragraphs 38, 89, 96-98, 106, 132, Claims 1-10, Figs.13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate wherein the first object detection device includes a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the second object detection device includes a third sensor of the first type and a fourth sensor of the second type, the first object detection result includes a first detection result from the first sensor and a second detection result from the second sensor, the second object detection result includes a third detection result from the third sensor and a fourth detection result from the fourth sensor, the determiner compares the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, and when the determiner identifies one detection result different from three other detection results among four detection results including the first detection result, the second detection result, the third detection result, and the fourth detection result, the outputter notifies an other vehicle of a sensor type of the sensor from which the one detection result identified has been obtained in order to provide sensor data for purposes of assisted driving, automated driving, and/or authenticating vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication.
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the obtainer further obtains a third object detection result generated by a third object detection device that is included in a third apparatus which is a vehicle different from the first apparatus and detects an object in the vicinity of the third apparatus, and when the determiner compares the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, and identifies one object detection result different from two other object detection results among three object detection results including the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, the determiner determines that the apparatus including the object detection device from which the one object detection result identified has been obtained is being attacked.
Kim teaches wherein the obtainer further obtains a third object detection result generated by a third object detection device that is included in a third apparatus which is a vehicle different from the first apparatus and detects an object in the vicinity of the third apparatus, and when the determiner compares the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, and identifies one object detection result different from two other object detection results among three object detection results including the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, the determiner determines that the apparatus including the object detection device from which the one object detection result identified has been obtained is being attacked. (Paragraphs 38, 55, 89, 96-98, 106, 132, Claims 1-10, Figs.13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate wherein the obtainer further obtains a third object detection result generated by a third object detection device that is included in a third apparatus which is a vehicle different from the first apparatus and detects an object in the vicinity of the third apparatus, and when the determiner compares the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, and identifies one object detection result different from two other object detection results among three object detection results including the first object detection result, the second object detection result, and the third object detection result, the determiner determines that the apparatus including the object detection device from which the one object detection result identified has been obtained is being attacked in order to provide sensor data for purposes of assisted driving, automated driving, and/or authenticating vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication.
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki teaches wherein the second apparatus is a vehicle or a roadside unit that is different from the first apparatus. (Paragraphs 6, 167)
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches an anomaly detection method comprising: obtaining a first detection result generated by a first detection device that is included in a first apparatus which is a vehicle and obtaining a second detection result generated by a second detection device that is included in a second apparatus in the vicinity of the first apparatus. (Abstract, Paragraphs 45, 66-67, 69, 76-78, Claims 1-7, Fig.8)
Sasaki also teaches determining whether at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked, by comparing the first detection result and the second detection result. (Paragraphs 92-95, Figs.2, 8)
Sasaki also teaches outputting a result of determination in the determining (Determiner 230 outputs the determination result to information communicator 270). (Paragraphs 98, 102, 180)
Sasaki does not explicitly a first object detection result generated by a first object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result generated by a second object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the second apparatus.
Kim teaches a first object detection result generated by a first object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result generated by a second object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the second apparatus. (Paragraphs 96-98, Figs.13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate a first object detection result generated by a first object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the first apparatus and a second object detection result generated by a second object detection device and detects an object in the vicinity of the second apparatus in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Kim and Matsuoka (US 20050024258 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches wherein the determiner converts the first detection result and the second detection result, and determines whether the first detection result and the second detection result after the conversion are different, and when the first detection result and the second detection result after the conversion are different, the determiner determines that at least one of the first apparatus or the second apparatus is being attacked. (Paragraph 93, 92, 94-95, Figs.2, 8)
Sasaki does not explicitly converting the first detection result and the second detection result into coordinates in a common coordinate system and a first object detection result and a second object detection result and determining whether the first object detection result and the second object detection result after the conversion are different
Kim teaches a first object detection result and a second object detection result and determining whether the first object detection result and the second object detection result after the conversion are different. (Paragraphs 89, 96-98, 104, Figs.13-15)
Matsuoka teaches converting the first detection result and the second detection result into coordinates in a common coordinate system. (Paragraphs 74-75, 80, figs.7-9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate a first object detection result and a second object detection result and determining whether the first object detection result and the second object detection result after the conversion are different as taught by Kim in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold and further modify Sasaki to incorporate converting the first detection result and the second detection result into coordinates in a common coordinate system as taught by Matsuoka in order to notify that a malfunction has occurred and send a command signal to notify a user of having caused an accident.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the first object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the first apparatus, and the second object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the second apparatus.
Kim teaches wherein the first object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the first apparatus, and the second object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the second apparatus. (Paragraphs 90-93, Claims 1-2, 7-9, Figs.10-12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Sasaki to incorporate wherein the first object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the first apparatus, and the second object detection result indicates whether an object is present or not in each of a plurality of regions set in advance as a region in the vicinity of the second apparatus as taught by Kim in order to determine an authentication satisfying trust threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights